THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITED OR RELIED ON AS
PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.
THE STATE OF
In The Court of Appeals
The State, Respondent,
Darrel Jackson, Appellant.
J. Mark Hayes, II, Circuit Court Judge
Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-244
Submitted May 1, 2006 – Filed May 16, 2006
Theo W. Mitchell, of
Greenville, for Appellant.
Attorney General Henry Dargan McMaster, Chief Deputy Attorney General John W. McIntosh, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Salley W. Elliott, Assistant Attorney General David A. Spencer, all of Columbia; and Solicitor Harold W. Gowdy, III, of Spartanburg, for Respondent.
PER CURIAM: Appellant Darrel Jackson appeals his conviction of animal cruelty to twelve pit bull dogs. The conviction forfeited his right to custody and ownership of his pit bulls pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. section 47-1-170 (Supp. 2005). According to section 47-1-150(F), the Humane Society was empowered to make “humane disposition” of all
On October 13, 2003, Elizabeth Tilley, an employee of the City of
Based on the evidence, Tilley was granted a search warrant, which she executed on October 14 at
Dr. Jean Stewart Hovis, DVM, examined the pit bulls upon their arrival at the Humane Society. Dr. Hovis opined that all of the dogs were moderately to severely underweight and many had multiple bite marks. Furthermore, their chains were extremely heavy and proportionally excessive to individual body mass. Many of the chains weighed more than half of the dog’s own weight.
Jackson was charged with the ill treatment of twenty-one pit bull dogs. He was tried in magistrate’s court. The jury found
Jackson appealed to the circuit judge, who upheld his convictions and sentences. An order granting custody to the Humane Society for humane disposition of the remaining dogs was affirmed.
Standard of Review
In criminal appeals from magistrate or municipal court, the circuit court does not conduct a de novo review, but instead reviews for preserved error raised to it by appropriate exception. State v. Landis, 362 S.C. 97, 606 S.E.2d 503 (Ct. App. 2004); State v. Henderson, 347 S.C. 455, 556 S.E.2d 691 (Ct. App. 2001). The appellate court reviewing the criminal appeal from the circuit court may review for errors of law only. State v. Cutter, 261 S.C. 140, 199 S.E.2d 61 (1973);
I. The Order
An argument not raised to and ruled upon by the trial court is not preserved for review. See State v. Simmons, 360 S.C. 33, 599 S.E.2d 448 (2004) (noting that, to be preserved for appellate review, issue must be raised and ruled upon in the trial court). The appellant has “the responsibility to identify errors on appeal, not the court.” Kennedy v.
In the case sub judice, no objection was raised in magistrate’s court that seizure of the abused animals was improper on statutory or constitutional grounds. During his sentencing,
South Carolina Code Annotated section 47-1-170 states: “The owner or person having charge or custody of an animal cruelly used who is convicted of any violation of this chapter forfeits ownership, charge, or custody of the animal.” S.C. Code Ann. § 47-1-170 (Supp. 2005). Section 47-1-150(F)(2) provides: “The officer or agent of any county or of the South Carolina Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or of any society incorporated for that purpose, taking charge of an animal as provided for in this section shall provide for the animal until . . . [t]he animal is turned over to the officer or agent as provided in Section 47-1-170 and a humane disposition of the animal is made.” S.C. Code Ann. § 47-1-150(F)(2) (Supp. 2005).
II. Substantial Evidence
III. Abuse of Discretion
Jackson’s reliance on State v. Preslar, 364 S.C. 466, 613 S.E.2d 381 (Ct. App. 2005), is misplaced. Preslar addressed the admissibility of a pending charge of criminal sexual conduct with a minor in a trial for the charge of intimidation of a witness where the witness was the victim of the criminal sexual conduct.
IV. Constitutional Issue
A constitutional argument is not preserved for appeal where appellant failed to argue the constitutional basis for his request at trial. State v. Byram, 326 S.C 107, 112-113, 485 S.E.2d 360, 362-63 (1997). Moreover, one to whose conduct the law clearly applies does not have standing to challenge on constitutional vagueness. State v. Michau, 355 S.C. 73, 583 S.E.2d 756 (2003). The evidentiary record revealed the dogs were subject to animal cruelty. Likewise, the evidence shows that
Other than stating in his brief that the animals were illegally seized,
The humane destruction of animals unfit for adoption is not animal cruelty as defined by the statute but an appropriate use of police power to protect the public. Sentell v.
HEARN, C.J., GOOLSBY and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.
 We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.